CAT/C/55/D/530/2012 activities was vague and difficult to interpret. It appeared strange that he did not submit any information regarding his political activities during the first asylum proceedings. The family could travel freely and the authorities did not show any interest in stopping them. The complainants were not politically active to such an extent that the authorities would be interested in them. The lack of written documents, the lack of credibility and the fact of having been in Sweden during the critical demonstrations of 2010 (in the context of the presidential elections) all meant that the complainants had not shown their need for protection to be probable. With regard to the treatment allegedly suffered by the second complainant at the hands of the Minsk police in 2006, the Migration Board referred to it as a police assault. The word “torture” was not used by the Migration Board. 2.5 On an unspecified date, the decision of the Migration Board was appealed before the Migration Court. On 20 April 2012, the Migration Court rejected the complainants’ appeal, noting inter alia that the complainants had received two police summonses for police interrogation in Minsk which mentioned that, in case of failure to appear, they risked a fine or imprisonment. The fact that the reason for being summonsed was not indicated was interpreted by the Court as evidence that the complainants were not in need of protection. The Migration Court also referred to the treatment suffered in 2006 by the second complainant as a police assault and not as torture. The complainants applied for leave to appeal before the Migration Court of Appeal. On 8 June 2012, the Migration Court of Appeal found, however, that this case did not present such an interest and rejected the application for leave to appeal. 2.6 On an unspecified date, the complainants applied to the Migration Board for reconsideration of their case based on new circumstances. The second complainant stated that her asylum application had been considered on the basis of the alleged abuse suffered and not on the ground that she had allegedly been tortured. She was not able to read the interview record, because it was written in Swedish. She had relied upon the Swedish authorities and believed that the Swedish authorities had assessed her allegations of torture. The complainants also claimed to have received a number of new calls from the Minsk police in the meantime and referred to the general situation in Belarus as regarded human rights abuses by the police. On 8 September 2012, the Migration Board rejected the application on the ground that only new circumstances could be taken into consideration. The Board considered that the elements put forward had already been taken into consideration during the previous proceedings. At the same time, the Migration Board noted that no information was given during the first set of proceedings with regard to the first complainant’s alleged torture. In the absence of new circumstances, the Board concluded that there was no reason to re-examine the asylum application. 2.7 On an unspecified date, the complainants submitted a new application to the Migration Board for reconsideration of their case because of new circumstances, based on a forensic report issued on 8 October 2012. According to the report, issued by Professor E.E., a forensic specialist at the Crisis and Trauma Centre, what was discovered during the physical examination of the second complainant gives evidence of torture in the way she described it. The second complainant maintained that, in 2006, she was forced by a police officer to sign a statement discrediting the former presidential candidate Mr. Kozulin and stating that she had received payment to demonstrate against the regime in place. When she refused to sign, she was beaten by a police officer who used a hot iron on her belly. When she finally signed the confession, she was transferred to hospital as her injuries were of a life-threatening nature. The Migration Board rejected the appeal on 1 November 2012. It considered that no new circumstances had been invoked. With regard to the forensic report, the Board stated that it did not put forward new elements, since another medical report alleging the same facts had already been presented by the complainants in 2011. Furthermore, the Migration Court assessed the complainants’ statements as lacking credibility. The Court considered that the complainants had not been politically active to 4